Gary Johnson Will Not Be In NH Debate

[mport1]

It is pretty hypocritical if we aren't outrageous by this now just because it is Gary. They pulled the same crap with Ron Paul in the past and everybody was rightfully up in arms about it.

 

[low preference guy]

It is pretty hypocritical if we aren't outrageous by this now just because it is Gary. They pulled the same crap with Ron Paul in the past and everybody was rightfully up in arms about it.

I make efforts to help the candidate I want to win. The opponents can be helped by their own supporters.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If he can't get in the debates, there is no point to running anymore. Go for Senate, Gary!

Thank you! Go for Senate now Gary.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It is pretty hypocritical if we aren't outrageous by this now just because it is Gary. They pulled the same crap with Ron Paul in the past and everybody was rightfully up in arms about it.

Yeah but people here, you know, actually supported Ron Paul.

Did anyone here care in 2008 about the debates in which Ron Paul was included but Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes were barred?

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah but people here, you know, actually supported Ron Paul.

Did anyone here care in 2008 about the debates in which Ron Paul was included but Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes were barred?

Ron had just beaten Guiliani and they had G on and not Ron. It wasn't that Ron just didn't make the cut.

 

[Bruno]

Prediction that Romney or Cain will be center stage, Gingrinch and Paul on the left and right.

 

[mport1]

Yeah but people here, you know, actually supported Ron Paul.

Did anyone here care in 2008 about the debates in which Ron Paul was included but Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes were barred?

No they didn't. But I think as long as we have a democracy/republic despite them being terrible forms of government, all candidate's voices should be heard.

 

[anaconda]

Is this a private debate? I guess if it's funded by CNN they have a responsibility to their advertisers to maximize their ratings. So I guess they should be able to invite whomever they want. But if they are being bribed by the Ford Foundation then perhaps there is another issue. Or, if they have to conform to some Federal election laws. Anybody know offhand?

 

[Avalon]

With Palin for instance, if she does not run, Ron gets 2% of her voters.

If Ron only gets 2% of her voters, his opponents will take (most of) the other 98%. A large, tight neocon race would be nice so Ron can win with a minority.

 

[anaconda]

If Ron only gets 2% of her voters, his opponents will take (most of) the other 98%. A large, tight neocon race would be nice so Ron can win with a minority.

This was the idea in 2008, but somehow McCain won most of the states. I still don't understand it.

 

[anaconda]

Hey does anyone happen to know if they are required to include third party candidates in the General Election debates if the third party candidate is polling sufficiently high?

 

[TheDrakeMan]

It is pretty hypocritical if we aren't outrageous by this now just because it is Gary. They pulled the same crap with Ron Paul in the past and everybody was rightfully up in arms about it.

Looking back at it from a 2011 perspective-- they may have actually been right.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

Hey does anyone happen to know if they are required to include third party candidates in the General Election debates if the third party candidate is polling sufficiently high?

Cobb and Badnarik were arrested in '04 for trying to find that out. Nobody in the mainstream media cared.

As an aside, I'm honestly more of a fan of Johnson's positions than Paul's (sacrilege!)--mostly to do with abortion and borders--but feel like RP has a better shot of getting a nomination. I've been a fan of RP since '04ish, and he's always come across as a genuinely likeable, honest and erudite statesman, and despite my misgivings about a few areas of policy, I know those are things he has put great thought into and arrived at from a perspective of maximizing individual liberty. I know a victory for either GJ or RP would be a victory for individual liberty.

As soon as GJ bows out, I'm all in for Ron. I think Johnson should spend a term as a gadfly in the senate and get the name recognition that Rand is getting. People gravitate towards name recognition to an enormous degree, which is the reason Gingrich is still afloat and Santorum has been invited. Santorum was absolutely trounced in Pennsylvania, despite being a hair spray-soaked Baby Jesus-lovin' conservative, but he inspired enough hate on the left (first hit on google for Santorum) that he's got the name recognition. Paul has the name recognition and must capitalize on it.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Hey does anyone happen to know if they are required to include third party candidates in the General Election debates if the third party candidate is polling sufficiently high?

The Commission on Presidential Debates has said they will allow any candidate in that is polling 15% or more, which is why Ross Perot was included in 1992.

Now we're stuck with a gaggle of political losers for third party candidates. People like Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney; none of whom could even crack 1% in November 2008.

 

[anaconda]

Cobb and Badnarik were arrested in '04 for trying to find that out.

WTF? Really? What were they charged with?

 

[Thomas]

emailed CNN, WMUR, and the Union Leader

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to encourage CNN to include Republican Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in the June 13th debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. By excluding the former Governor of New Mexico, CNN is disenfranchising a sizable and growing bloc within the Republican Party, libertarians. Mr Johnson has in fact registered at 3% in the latest Gallup poll.

Sincerely,
Thomas

 

[anaconda]

The Commission on Presidential Debates has said they will allow any candidate in that is polling 15% or more, which is why Ross Perot was included in 1992.

Now we're stuck with a gaggle of political losers like Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney; none of whom could even crack 1% in November 2008.

So, as strictly hypothetical, if Ron runs third party he might very well gain admission to the general election debate.

 

[sailingaway]

So far the impact I've seen of having Gary Johnson in the race is 1) papers say 'Ron Paul and Gary Johnson' and equate their views, in my mind to the detriment of Ron; 2) Gary's supporters smear Ron as not as electable and as having 'baggage' they vaguely describe in nasty overtones in multiple articles including those linked to Gary's campaign site at one point and to his facebook, and 3) Ron is having Gary's primary issues thrown at him. That last might happen anyhow, but the first two make me see only detriment and no benefit to having Gary in the race, personally, even apart from the 'split the vote' issue which may be larger in our conversations than in reality, since those voting for Johnson seem to HATE Ron to the point of pretending old newsletters he never wrote 20 years ago are somehow important today. Those people are never going to vote for Ron in the darkness of the voting booth, whatever they pretend elsewhere.

There are those who have positive feelings towards Gary, doubtless long predating this campaign, but I never heard of him before around CPAC 2010 tried to like him when I thought Ron wouldn't run again, couldn't, and now only really know negative of him. So, personally his not being in the debate doesn't bother me any more than Roemer or Krager (?) not being in the debate.

 

[TheDrakeMan]

Cobb and Badnarik were arrested in '04 for trying to find that out. Nobody in the mainstream media cared.

As an aside, I'm honestly more of a fan of Johnson's positions than Paul's (sacrilege!)--mostly to do with abortion and borders--but feel like RP has a better shot of getting a nomination. I've been a fan of RP since '04ish, and he's always come across as a genuinely likeable, honest and erudite statesman, and despite my misgivings about a few areas of policy, I know those are things he has put great thought into and arrived at from a perspective of maximizing individual liberty. I know a victory for either GJ or RP would be a victory for individual liberty.

As soon as GJ bows out, I'm all in for Ron. I think Johnson should spend a term as a gadfly in the senate and get the name recognition that Rand is getting. People gravitate towards name recognition to an enormous degree, which is the reason Gingrich is still afloat and Santorum has been invited. Santorum was absolutely trounced in Pennsylvania, despite being a hair spray-soaked Baby Jesus-lovin' conservative, but he inspired enough hate on the left (first hit on google for Santorum) that he's got the name recognition. Paul has the name recognition and must capitalize on it.

I use to hold a similar view towards Johnson, so I wish to ask you a question. How could you possibly support open borders? Would the estimated 1 billion people wanting to move here really respect the ideas of liberty and vote for small-government candidates? No. America is extremely lucky we're even able to get a good amount of Conservatives in office. Importing a bunch of immigrants would be nothing less than national suicide. What about our American culture? It would be literally erased in one decade. What about the fact that a good portion of the world is still rather barbaric? Wife-beating, on average, is something like 90%+ in most Islamic countries. This is due to the fact the Quran permits it. Rape is a common practice in large parts of the world, even a part of some nations' culture. I really don't see how it's beneficial or healthy to rely on the free market for immigration.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

I use to hold a similar view towards Johnson, so I wish to ask you a question. How could you possibly support open borders? Would the estimated 1 billion people wanting to move here really respect the ideas of liberty and vote for small-government candidates? No. America is extremely lucky we're even able to get a good amount of Conservatives in office. Importing a bunch of immigrants would be nothing less than national suicide. What about our American culture? It would be literally erased in one decade.

As we speak, American culture has already been almost completely eradicated; today, only pockets remain on reservations.

As it is, we need more people to pay into Social Security to keep it solvent. Immigrants are generally hard-working, law-abiding individuals, and largely assimilate within a generation or two. I feel it is a grave mistake to describe America as a land of the free if we are unwilling to allow other people to come here and peacefully work and live. America, instead of "liberating" foreign countries, should serve as an example to other nations about the merits of freedom, and provide an opportunity for people to build a new life with their own labor.

Our current situation has the benefit of illegal immigrants are paid market wages (not minimum wage) for back-breaking work that Americans do not want. American residents (illegals included) benefit by purchasing domestically-produced goods at lower prices. Illegal immigrants are ineligible for a large amount of social transfer payments. The downsides are that we do not know who is entering the country, and these people do not pay taxes.

I will repeat Friedman's observation about the incompatibility of a welfare state and open borders, but with the caveat that the greater context of his remarks focused on how illegal immigration solved the problem of a welfare state. I do recommend the link. but that we only benefit from it as long as it remains illegal. You cannot (easily) eliminate the welfare state, nor can you easily open borders. Having the immigration be illegal solves both of those problems.

If you want to throw around the word "amnesty" to describe anybody's political stances, every day that passes, plenty of foreigners are living and working illegal in our country. Any situation where they are not actively deported is a form of amnesty. The amount of policing that would be required to round up every undocumented immigrant would perhaps outstrip the drug war in its unconstitutional intrusion on people's private affairs.

There is also a huge difference between opening borders to immigrants (with background and lice checks, etc.) and immediately granting citizenship at the border. Far too many people hear "guest worker" or "green card" and immediately think of foreigners arriving a couple of months before an election and registering to vote. And I do think that you may underestimate the love for freedom that other humans can have, in spite of being born on less fashionable continents. If anything, I feel the greater enemy of freedom is the politician who wants to shut out the rest of the world while giving welfare to the native-born while shielding them from competition for jobs.

Anyway, that's all off-topic to the thread, but it's my €0.02.